Zdjęcia w artykule: Andrzej Rudiak
are full of such scenes (or very many), sometimes minor incidents, and sometimes crucial for the narrative of events, which in all probability could not have happened in Auschwitz as we know from documents, scientific studies and accounts of former prisoners. The various heroic deeds and "miraculous rescues" of the main characters are in general completely unreal, disconnected from the bureaucratic or social realities that governed Auschwitz. The manner in which the main character of the book Angel of Auschwitz rescues children brought to the extermination camp, the rescue of a would-be fugitive by the tattooist of Auschwitz, the miraculous survival of the protagonist in Kommando Puff - all this artificially inflates the bubble of heroism, which, however, bursts at the first attempt to verify their authenticity.
The camp's themes are closely related to macabre, drama and fear. However, unlike the camp diaries, which report on experiences of the prisoners, the elements of horror are deliberately exaggerated in the novels, and various scenes described were placed in the texts only to play on the reader's feelings, to arouse fear in them. To achieve this effect, the authors do not venture into literary processing of actual dramatic episodes, examples of which are provided in abundance by memoirs of former prisoners. They instead create their own macabre and horrific, shocking visions. The question of their authenticity, or rather the lack thereof, and the fact that they are indeed imaginary events that can never happen, is of no importance given their effectiveness in arousing and escalating emotions. Examples include, among others, the selection process involving Dr Mengele and the absurd scene of identifying a corpse in the gas chamber, presented in The Tattooist of Auschwitz. The description of the selection process conducted by Taube in the book Cilka's Journey is not only exaggerated and repulsive but also offensive to the memory of the victims, once again dehumanising them.
However, the greatest accusation one may have against authors of the quasi-camp literature is not that they make mistakes in their books; they fantasise that they create historical novels without a proper factual and technical base. All this would have no significance if the reader picking up a book of this type knew that they were dealing with literary fiction, with a product of the author's imagination, with an imaginary work that creates, not documents, a reality. However, the authors of quasi-camp novels consciously or not mislead the reader by giving their books the form of popular science publications and enclosing them with assurances about the authenticity of the described events. Assurances of credibility play a primary role on the covers of these novels. Thus, we are dealing here with "true stories" or novels "based on true stories". Inside the publication, the reader can find footnotes as well as maps, copies of documents and photographs, and sometimes acknowledgements to people associated with the research work (archives employees who carry out preliminary research). They also contain short biographies of people described in the novel, acknowledgements to them or members of their families. Lastly, they also contain information aimed at confirming the author's qualifications, as well as assurances about the diligent work invested in the preparation of the text - a list of publications and sources consulted, places visited and institutions contacted by the author. All this reinforces readers' misconception that they are dealing with a book containing something interesting about Auschwitz that will help them to learn about the camp fate of a particular individual.
However, if the authors take the trouble to get to know the history, why did their work (e.g. listening to the accounts of a witness, inquiring in the archives, sometimes getting acquainted with the subject literature) prove to be insufficient to create good, substantive texts? There are probably many reasons for this; however, two seem to be particularly prevalent. The first one is the lack of broadly understood professional training to work with memory materials, which results in excessive trust in the memory of the witness and lack of critical analysis of testimonies as sources. The mere hearing and even the most faithful writing of the history of a former prisoner is not still a guarantee for the creation of a text that is factually reliable. It is still necessary to at least verify it against other available sources and studies.